Gwyddion wrote:What is the difference between the Buddhist concept of 'Citta' and the Hindu concept of 'Brahman'? And did the Buddha actually teach the concept of Citta or is this something that came later.

Thank you

As I understand it:

Brahman, in Hinduism, is "sat-cit-ananda" meaning "unaltered existence-consciousness-bliss" which is usually regarded as ātman ("true self").Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, and not-self.So, there is a vast difference.

The Buddha actually taught in-depth about Citta and how to get rid of its defilements for the final liberation from suffering.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

tiltbillings wrote: So, your having just defined it, buddhanature is not nothing.

I'd prefer the Buddha's teachings. What you are advocating looks a lot like Hinduism.

I'am neither sure that is some-think. What alow us to hear our internal voice?

Actualy i dont know if it's Hinduistic way of teaching, but discriptions of it are present in all religions under differents nouns. I understand that Buddha teachs The Dhamma by the middle, by conditioned existanece, but i alowed to me send this graphic because i think it can be helpfull in our practice, in getting free from impermanence, and suffering caused by this impermanence of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and concsiosness and take refuge in somethink stable and anatta.

Perharps this graphic is not perfect in explication, a-Dhammic, and can make confusion, if it is, please delete it, i dont want confuse anybody.

tiltbillings wrote: So, your having just defined it, buddhanature is not nothing.

I'd prefer the Buddha's teachings. What you are advocating looks a lot like Hinduism.

I'am neither sure that is some-think. What alow us to hear our internal voice?

Actualy i dont know if it's Hinduistic way of teaching, but discriptions of it are present in all religions under differents nouns.

No they are not, and, yes, what you describe is Hinduism.

I understand that Buddha teachs The Dhamma by the middle, by conditioned existanece, but i alowed to me send this graphic because i think it can be helpfull in our practice, in getting free from impermanence, and suffering caused by this impermanence of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and concsiosness and take refuge in somethink stable and anatta.

Perharps this graphic is not perfect in explication, a-Dhammic, and can make confusion, if it is, please delete it, i dont want confuse anybody.

It will stay. No need to delete it, but I think you need to seriously rethink your understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote: No they are not, and, yes, what you describe is Hinduism.

It will stay. No need to delete it, but I think you need to seriously rethink your understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

There is no two infinity possible, where one infinity will limite another infinity by his simple presence, there is could not be one infinity for Hinduism, one another from Muslims etc. So any who speaks about eternity speak about the same. They speaks about infinity. There is one muslims proverb : If somethink what you want to say is less important that silence, so shut-up. Silence is pure, non-created, unconditioned, the nature of all noize. Also it's said that after the enlightement of Gotama, Budhha have never said anythink (of corse it's an internal point of view)

Only that have been never created that can be eternal. So any who speaks about nothink, about purity, about non-created, about beyond thinking, beyond fenomena, nature of fenomenas, unconditioned so they speaks about the same.

So Yes, all religions speaks about the same, by different way. Ajhan Buddadasa, Ajhan Sumedho etc are agree with it. Interpretation is different - yes, way that Dhamma is explained is different - yes, but the Dhamma it self (law) is the same.

If it brings freedom? Yes. Because it's unconditioned, free, pure from all, have no any substance, no space, no time, free from all, like a lotus. That why i said "nothink".If it's the nature of all fenomenas? Yes. Because it's purity is the condition of all existance. Like a silence is condition to noize, like a canvas is condition to picture, like a stability is condition to mouvement, like a ground is condition to building. Thats why i said "Buddha Nature"If it's anatta? Yes. Because it's not created. Thats why i'am sure that it's not Hindu conditioned interpretation like a eternal self, or Brahma.

Perharps explanation is imperfect, perharps it can not be explained, perharps the way of explanation is not the same, but it's Nibbana.

If i could re-ask you, because you dont answer, what hear your internal voice?

tiltbillings wrote: No they are not, and, yes, what you describe is Hinduism.

It will stay. No need to delete it, but I think you need to seriously rethink your understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

There is no two infinity possible, where one infinity will limite another infinity by his simple presence, there is could not be one infinity for Hinduism, one another from Muslims etc. So any who speaks about eternity speak about the same. They speaks about infinity. There is one muslims proverb : If somethink what you want to say is less important that silence, so shut-up. Silence is pure, non-created, unconditioned, the nature of all noize. Also it's said that after the enlightement of Gotama, Budhha have never said anythink (of corse it's an internal point of view)

This is nice new-age thinking, but it is not the Buddha-Dhamma.

So Yes, all religions speaks about the same, by different way. Ajhan Buddadasa, Ajhan Sumedho etc are agree with it. Interpretation is different - yes, way that Dhamma is explained is different - yes, but the Dhamma it self (law) is the same.

Assuming they did, that does not mean that they are correct or that you correctly understood them.

If it brings freedom? Yes. Because it's unconditioned, free, pure from all, have no any substance, no space, no time, free from all, like a lotus. That why i said "nothink".If it's the nature of all fenomenas? Yes. Because it's purity is the condition of all existance. Like a silence is condition to noize, like a canvas is condition to picture, like a stability is condition to mouvement, like a ground is condition to building. Thats why i said "Buddha Nature"If it's anatta? Yes. Because it's not created. Thats why i'am sure that it's not Hindu conditioned interpretation like a eternal self, or Brahma.

Perharps explanation is imperfect, perharps it can not be explained, perharps the way of explanation is not the same, but it's Nibbana.

Not that you have shown. What you are describing fits far better with Hinduism and Perennial Philosophy and New-Age-ism, but really misses the point of the Buddha-Dhamma.

If i could re-ask you, because you dont answer, what hear your internal voice?

I'll tell you what: do your best to put this question into clear, accurate English so that I can clearly understand what you are asking, and I'll consider it.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Brahman, in Hinduism, is "sat-cit-ananda" meaning "unaltered existence-consciousness-bliss" which is usually regarded as ātman ("true self").Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, and not-self.So, there is a vast difference.

The Buddha actually taught in-depth about Citta and how to get rid of its defilements for the final liberation from suffering.

Sorry I think there is some confusion about non-dualist Hindu yogic practice and dualist Hindu/yoga.

In non-dualist yoga/Hinduism Atman is regarded as an illusion - like a drop of water in an ocean, where the ocean is Brahman, when the illusion of self (Atman) is extinguished then there is only Brahman and Brahman is not created but merely is.

You say Atman is usually regarded as the same as Brahman - but it is not the same if you regard yourself separate from Brahman, then you believe you are Atman when in reality there is only Brahman - The phrase 'Atman is Brahman' confuses people sometimes it is meant to demonstrate that separateness is an illusion, as in the drop of water (Atman) in the ocean (Brahman) - which is a metaphor that Buddhists also use.

Now this seems very similar to the Buddhist ideal where the self (which is an illusion: Annata or Anatman) is given up and what is left is Nirvana.

From what I read the Buddha taught that there was nothing permanent that traveled from one life to the next except for the Karma which is impersonal - so in other words no soul or permanent thing that transmigrates.

Yet recently I have been looking into the concept of 'Pure Citta' as taught by the forest tradition - in regards to the 'base level (pure) Citta which is always there from one life to the next and the only thing that does not change':

but this is a contradiction to what I've read and understood in the past which is exactly what you wrote and I agree with:

Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, and not-self.

But I've now read and listened to talks by Forest Ajahns in particular that state that: there is the Citta that is covered by self, and a (pure) Base-level Citta that is not covered by a cloak of self and is there unchanging from one life to the next. (And this is exactly the same as non-dualist yoga!

So either:

A: this idea of a base-level Citta is like Atman - which is an illusion according to Buddhism and non-dualist Hindu/yogic practice also and means the Ajahns in the Forest Tradition are missing the point and teaching a kind of Brahmanism.

B: This pure - base-level Citta is shared by all of us and is unchanging - which is like Brahman - And yet if this is the case then a pure Citta would be the ideal not Nirvana, unless Nirvana is the state of achieving a pure Citta.

I hope this clears up my question a little bit but I worry that it might make things a bit more confusing, please be patient with me as I want to understand exactly in my own mind what the Buddha taught - e.g. how can one become an Arhant if they are confused? And this is my ideal.

It also frustrates me these new-age cliches, because it covers up the Dhamma and muddies the water. I live in a Buddhist temple and I hear it all the time from people who visit and think they are experts on Buddhist/Dhamma, but i'm patient and I listen, everyone deserves that at least.

I should be asking these questions to the monks or the Abbot but the eye-opener here is that many monks don't actually know Dhamma very well - I help the monks out and they are good people, but some of them become monks for reasons other than practicing Dhamma which is a shame.

I want to teach Dhamma myself one day because of what it has done for me in my life so far, so i need to get it right 100% so I don't spread muck around so to speak.

Sorry to go off-topic but it explains why this forum is invaluable to me at this time.

Gwyddion wrote:It also frustrates me these new-age cliches, because it covers up the Dhamma and muddies the water. I live in a Buddhist temple and I hear it all the time from people who visit and think they are experts on Buddhist/Dhamma, but i'm patient and I listen, everyone deserves that at least.

I should be asking these questions to the monks or the Abbot but the eye-opener here is that many monks don't actually know Dhamma very well - I help the monks out and they are good people, but some of them become monks for reasons other than practicing Dhamma which is a shame.

I want to teach Dhamma myself one day because of what it has done for me in my life so far, so i need to get it right 100% so I don't spread muck around so to speak.

Sorry to go off-topic but it explains why this forum is invaluable to me at this time.

Thank you

The most important if it brings them freedom from suffering. Noun, label is not important. If i will call it "a chair", or "airplane", or "parachute" it would be the same freedom.Ask them if they feel free, ask them if they realise it, or just logicaly understan it. The rest have no importance.

If you arehearing a "nothink" voice, it is a conditioned process. Where in the suttas did the Buddha teach such a thing?

I have just ask you if you hear your voice. Yes/No would be apropriate answer.

And now, please, count "one two three", and ask you the question : what is wisely hearing your voice?

It is impermanent?It is brings suffering?It is self?It is your nature?It is unconditioned?It is uncreated?It is refuge?It is goes with Lord Buddha explications?

Please study it, and give me "Yes/No - Why" answer.I'am realy sorry that i tell you what to do, i have no any legitimity for it, but if you have some compassion to my wrong view, it would be helpfull to me to know what do you thinking obout.